On top of that, their claims it’s profitable does some heavy lifting with how to account for the cost of launching rockets.
It’s extremely cool product and very useful for many customers. But sustainability of current pricing is very questionable.
I've tent camped a lot on forest service land (and BLM land) both out west and in the east. Generally having arrived there by human power. Not once have I been confronted with a situation where the internet would've added to my safety in any way whatsoever.
but it isn't just about harm, as i said "convenience". i like being able to download detailed maps for trail hiking on-demand, and being off-grid and still able to be working (as my job requires me to be online).
And please, when you go hiking, download and print all the maps you need before you depart, and share a detailed plan with somebody able to call help, including a time estimate where you will make contact.
As for work. Please just take time off and take a proper vacation. By being constantly on call you will burn out at a much faster rate.
If I'm living and traveling in my campervan for months on end, which is something I love to do, having starlink enables me to not have to plan. I can download the maps, hop out of my van and go. That's my own ideal freedom, I'm not tied to planning the same way you are.
> Please just take time off and take a proper vacation. By being constantly on call you will burn out at a much faster rate.
Wow, thanks for the advice. It is wild to me that you've got enough of an ego to say this to someone you don't know.
It isn't out of the question to have a major injury in a remote location.
But the fundamental problem would be being on your own in a remote location, not being unable to call 911.
Yes in your skating example, you "only" fell and shattered your femur.
But what if you fell and hit your head or landed and hit your spine ?
Or what if you had a heart attack ?
You would not be in a position to call 911 then, would you.
Being on your own in a remote location is not a risk problem that you can solve with any amount of technology.
I never said anything about being alone.
I would humbly suggest that you are moving the goalposts.
It was implied in your what-if post, i.e. "I fractured my femur in the skate park, but what if I was in a remote location".
You can also get cheap satellite dumb-phones with pay-as-you-go SIM cards. No need to be tied to a Starlink sub if your primary concern is about being able to summon help in an emergency in a remote location. All you need is your location and you can get that from any satellite dumb-phone.
Also with multiple humans there are other options. Unless you are somewhere truly remote, a casual walk a few minutes back down the trail will likely find you some other humans who can assist and summon help.
Stating the obvious but also in a remote location, 911 will not turn up instantly, so people in the group should have suitable training for remote first aid and be prepared to give it for an extended period whilst waiting for 911.
Because liquor stores get robbed sometimes, but they aren't usually found in the middle of a national forest.
Defence contracts are more likely than anything to be what keeps the satellites in orbit.
I'd argue it is going to go the other way. It is going to find more and more broad usage over time.
Then you have the truly remote areas where you have no choice, it's Starlink or OneWeb, but that's still a niche.
Seems like an opportunity to me.
On the other hand, if you're dealing with being eaten by a bear, having a dangerous encounter with another person, or are at risk of being overrun by wildfire or flooding, a phone isn't likely to help much with the next 30 seconds of your possibly soon-to-be-abbreviated life. That's the risk you (and I) take by being out in the woods. You can't mitigate all or even much of that with technology.
starlink enables me to get the best of both worlds, which is a huge reason why i love it so much. don't knock it until you try it. =)
I think you can safely assume that everyone on this thread excluding you shares my bias.
https://i.imgur.com/pagujRS.png
this is a map of the t-satellite coverage from the t-mobile coverage map, just the t-sat layer.
comment edited from one 2x increase, because math and language are hard.
If you had a choice between Fiber or Starlink, you’d choose Fiber.
So as traditional ISPs improve service and coverage, Starlink becomes less in demand.
Starlink would only make sense if the world was not getting more and more concentrated around densely populated areas.
Telcos manage many multiples of Starlink's traffic just fine over terrestrial high-bandwidth optic fiber.
Starlink has excellent military applications. The consumer business is a dishonest joke to fool investors.
You cannot just put more satellites on top of cities, as they aren’t geostationary (which is why they’re fast), so you need to add insane amount of satellites, that would do nothing most of the time, when they’re not on top of densely populated area.
It’s still the best option, but far from “global”. Also Iran is an obvious lie with that “coming soon” color, so god knows what else isn’t true on this.